VCI Legal – Febuary 10, 2026

1. Origins and Background of the Dispute

At the beginning of the 21st century, the Venezuelan government under the leadership of President Hugo Chávez initiated a large-scale nationalization program to re-establish national control over the oil and gas industry. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, two of the top U.S. oil and gas corporations, have invested billions of dollars in Venezuela over decades. In 2007, Venezuela asked these companies to accept a minority role in new ventures with a maximum ownership rate of only about 40 percent while the Venezuelan National Oil Corporation (“PDVSA“) held at least 60 percent, both companies refused1. 

The consequence of not accepting the new terms is the loss of complete control over assets worth billions of dollars. For ExxonMobil, the Cerro Negro project with an expected capacity of 180,000 barrels per day has been stalled2, while ConocoPhillips has lost control over the Petrozuata and Hamaca projects along with its stake in the Corocoro 3project. The damage is not only limited to the loss of physical assets, but also causes serious disruption to the entire value chain of companies. This refusal comes from businesses arguing that the new provisions seriously violate previously signed international investment protection commitments. 

1. Legal battle between ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips vs Venezuela

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips both invest through subsidiaries established in countries with bilateral investment protection agreements with Venezuela and the Netherlands.  

The companies have built their lawsuits on various types of international obligation violations, the most serious of which is the prohibition on expropriation without compensation. Venezuela has implemented direct expropriation by taking over physical assets such as factories, equipment, and infrastructure, completely stripping the company of control and management of the project, and transferring all assets to PDVSA. But the companies also argue for indirect expropriation, in addition to the formal expropriation action, Venezuela has imposed measures that substantially detract from the value of the investment through unilateral changes in tax rate terms, interference with day-to-day business activities, etc  and restricting the freedom of businesses to operate4. 

The companies also cited violations of the Fair and Equitable Treatment principle. The sudden change of policy without transparency, without adequate prior notice, and without proper compliance with the legal process has created an unstable and unpredictable investment environment, contrary to reasonable expectations of investors. 

The companies also accused Venezuela of violating its obligations of adequate protection and confidentiality by failing to protect its legitimate interests and failing to prevent actions that would damage investments. Even accepting that nationalization can be considered legal for reasons of public interest, international law still requires that compensation meet the Hull Formula standard (compensation must be timely, adequate and effective). Venezuela does not meet any of these criteria, making the act of nationalization a serious violation of international law. 

Although Venezuela, with its central argument based on the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, has not been accepted. The ICSID arbitral tribunal rejected this argument, asserting that the sovereign right to natural resources is legal and recognized, but that this right is not absolute and cannot be unconditional. When nationalizing the assets of foreign investors, the country must comply with the international obligations to which it has voluntarily committed, in particular the obligation of fair and adequate compensation. National sovereignty cannot be used as a shield to avoid international responsibility or as an excuse to violate commitments signed in international agreements. If every country could invoke sovereignty to deny international obligations, then the entire system of international law would collapse. 

Venezuela has also raised objections to the nationality of investors, arguing that the Dutch subsidiaries that ExxonMobil uses to invest in are only shell companies, trying to take advantage of the Dutch-Venezuelan agreement for protection. However, the arbitral tribunal has applied the principle of the incorporation test and recognized that it is a perfectly legal and common business practice for multinational companies to choose investment structures through countries with good protection treaties,  is called treaty shopping.  

Venezuela was instrumental in withdrawing from the ICSID Convention in 2012, but the move failed to achieve its goal of protecting Venezuela from ongoing lawsuits.  

1. Dispute Outcome and Lessons Learned

Shortly after filing the case at ICSID, ExxonMobil asked the arbitral tribunal to order interim measures, preventing Venezuela from transferring, consuming, or concealing assets pending a final ruling. After deliberation, the arbitral tribunal ordered Venezuela not to destroy or transfer the disputed property while awaiting the ruling but rejected the request to freeze the bank accounts due to concerns that the measure would have too severe an impact on the Venezuelan economy and the government’s ability to perform basic functions.  

The outcome of the lawsuits between ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Venezuela has become one of the largest international arbitration awards in history. ConocoPhillips was awarded $8.7–9 billion in damages5, while ExxonMobil also won billions of dollars in compensation through various judgments67.  

The case is a prime example of how multinational corporations structure investments to mitigate geopolitical risks. In the absence of a direct Investment Protection and Incentive (BIT) Agreement between the United States and Venezuela, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips invested through subsidiaries in the Netherlands to take advantage of the Netherlands-Venezuela BIT Agreement. The Treaty Shopping strategy has been legally recognized and protected regardless of the nationality of the final shareholder in order to optimize the legal framework. Furthermore, the presence of “survival clauses” in BITs has ensured that Venezuela’s withdrawal from the 2012 ICSID Convention cannot save the country from ongoing litigation, as existing investments remain protected for the next 10–20 years. 

However, despite the legal victory, the enforcement of these rulings faced many difficulties due to Venezuela’s involuntary payment, forcing companies to pursue asset distraint procedures in a third country. Temporary measures such as freezing bank accounts are often rejected by arbitral tribunals for fear of placing an undue burden on a country’s economy. Ultimately, the actual damage far outweighs the value of lost physical assets, including crude oil supply chain disruptions, breaches of long-term contracts with customers, and the collapse of strategic expansion plans in the region.  

These cases not only affirm investors’ rights under international law but also show the practical challenge of turning arbitral awards into tangible compensation. 

About VCI Legal:

VCI Legal is an award-winning business law firm in Vietnam with a wide range of legal and corporate services, among other things, corporate, banking & finance, tax, labor & HR, real estate and dispute resolution with special focus on international investment disputes, We also offer our specialized type of service called “In-House Counsel Service” with the aim of assisting our clients in dealing with all types of internal and external issues arising from their day-to-day operations and business activities. With our offices in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, we have a tremendous depth of experience in providing well-reasoned and comprehensive legal advice to not only multinationals and Fortune 500 companies, but also small and medium enterprises.

Our professional team comprises one of the leading law firms in Vietnam with service quality highly recommended and acknowledged by international legal service reviewers such as: The Legal 500, AsiaLaw Profiles, IFLR, KPMG’s Tax Directors’ Handbook, Acquisition International, ACQ Global, Global Law Experts, Finance Monthly, and Chambers & Partners.

For many years, VCI Legal has been ranked among the top law firms in Vietnam for corporate, finance, insurance, taxation, employment, intellectual property and investment. With a “Can Do Attitude” combined with a “Know How” capacity, our firm is big enough to provide comprehensive legal support for any in-house legal matters, yet small enough to care about each of our clients. We undertake each engagement with the mindset of a long-term relationship, with the will to give whatever it takes to understand and fulfill your needs.

Ho Chi Minh City

Suite P7-42.18, Vinhomes Central Park, 720A Dien Bien Phu, Thanh My Tay Ward, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Tel.: (+84) 028 3827 2029 Fax: (+84) 028 3823 4436

Hanoi

Suite 1903, Floor 19, W1 Tower, Vinhomes Westpoint, Pham Hung, Tu Liem Ward, Hanoi City, Vietnam

Tel.: (+84) 024 3936 4985 – (+84) 024 3936 4987

Affiliated Offices: Beijing – Shanghai – Hanoi – Ho Chi Minh City – Singapore – New Delhi – Dubai – Doha – Zurich – Paris – Rome – Brescia – Washington D.C. – Los Angeles